Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
To All Candidates Not Named Cruz or Rubio: Time to Fall on Your Swords
The Republican candidates are unanimous in two convictions: that this is a do-or-die election and that each believes that only he is selfless enough to be our nation’s savior.
Otherwise, why haven’t any of the not-going-to-wins thrown their support behind either Senators Cruz or Rubio, the two plausibly-elected conservative candidates? And why don’t Walker, Perry, and Jindal do the same? Unless something happens in the interim, it is plausible — if not probable — that Trump will win both Iowa and New Hampshire and then clinch the nomination. That should be enough to motivate a selfless series of endorsements from those candidates who haven’t a reasonable chance. After all, I thought they were team players running in the interest of the country? But, for all candidates not named Cruz and Rubio, pride is apparently more than equal to their professed desire to rally the GOP to the White House.
Specifically, I think that Carson throwing his support to either Rubio or Cruz before Iowa could have a game-changing effect. A sober analysis indicates that he won’t win, but he’d be more than a footnote in history if he were able to swing his supporters to an electable conservative (Carson’s Real Clear Politics Average in Iowa: 7.4 percent).
Similarly, Jeb Bush — whose foolish and arrogant candidacy arguably paved the way for Trump — could redeem his name by tossing his support behind someone with a chance to win New Hampshire (Bush’s Granite State RCPA: 7.8 percent). As things stand, however, his only accomplishment will be pulling down Rubio. According to Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard:
On December 7, [Right to Rise] the pro-Bush super PAC launched its all-out offensive on Rubio, the first of what would become a $20 million assault on the Florida senator that ran nationally on Fox News and extensively in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. The first ad asked, called ‘Desk,’ asked voters to imagine Rubio – along with Ted Cruz and Donald Trump – in the Oval Office. Rubio ‘skipped crucial national security hearings and votes just to campaign,’ the narrator says. That ad was followed by another, ‘Briefing,’ that also hit Rubio for missing votes and a third, ‘Promotion,’ which alleged that Rubio was missing votes even before he decided to run for president. In early January, the super PAC went up with an ad called ‘Vane,’ which portrayed Rubio as a flip-flopper on immigration and “just another Washington politician we can’t trust.’
Sprinkled among these Rubio attack ads were spots criticizing Governor Chris Christie and Governor John Kasich as ineffective. But the main target was Rubio – on the receiving end of some $20 million of the roughly $22 million that Right to Rise spent on negative ads between early December and this past weekend.
Reading this sort of thing makes me long for the days when candidates were selected in smoke-filled backroom deals.
Published in Politics
The Bush Institute put out its first journal today. I think he’s starting to re-engage.
You seem to be assuming that none of the other candidates supporters would vote for Trump. I don’t think that’s the case. All of these guys are 15% and under for a reason; they don’t really light the fires of most voters. So I don’t necessarily think it’s a given that someone like Ben Carson’s voters would automatically pledge allegiance to Rubio.
That’s because there wasn’t this much desperation among some people before a single vote was cast last time. For all of the talk of “Trumpkins”… they’re stupid, they’re fanatic, they can’t be reasoned with, etc etc… it’s the anti-Trump forces that have been most hysterical about the process, up to and including accusations of Fascism and crypto-Nazism.
Aside: I really wish organizations would provide this sort of online journal in epub format.
But mostly in response to histrionic answers to reasonable questions concerning their candidate.
I agree. Hopefully the other candidates are just biding their time, and Rick Perry is the first in a rush of endorsements. Ted Cruz is my preference, but if other Republicans mass behind Rubio and push him ahead of Trump, I’ll be completely happy with that as well.
I think you guys give too much credit to how much endorsements matter. Unless two candidates are fighting over a constituency which is very loyal to one person, and that person makes a big deal of endorsing one of those two candidates (Sarah Palin), I don’t think you’re going to see a dent.
If Ted Cruz dropped out and endorsed Jim Gilmore; I don’t think you’d see Jim Gilmore suddenly beside Donald Trump in the debate.
Endorsements from politicians and celebrities are only slightly more overrated than endorsements from newspapers. For voters, they mean squat. It’s nice if your favorite rockstar likes your favorite pol, but if he doesn’t, it’s not going to change your mind come voting time.
How hard is it to take out Trump? Isn’t there footage or at least a photo of him palling around with the Clintons? Didn’t he donate money to Hillary? The TV ad writes itself.
I don’t have a focus group handy. But I would even do a humorous rendition instead of the usual black & white, grainy photo piece with the ominous, this-guy-is-Satan voiceover.
I’m sure that was tongue-in-cheek. Were that the case, we’d have Jeb and we’d better like it.
Pardon my naivete but do all of these polls showing Trump at 30% consist of only eligible Republican primary voters? Or, do they include everyone willing to answer the pollsters phone call, including those who get news from their Facebook feed and Saturday Night Live?
I believe they try to poll only past Republican voters.